W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2001

Attention Users! (RDF Core WG Decisions)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:10:38 -0500
Message-Id: <200106221613.f5MGDIQ16171@theinfo.org>
To: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
RDF Users:

The RDF Core Working Group is making decisions that directly 
affect your software and your documents. I (personally) feel it 
is extremely important to keep you abreast of these decisions. 
While we have agreed upon the following, it is not yet set in 
stone, and your comments may guide us in the future or cause us 
to reconsider our decisions.

** Current Decisions


On 25th May 2001, the WG decided that ALL attributes must be 
namespace qualified. There is a description of the decision, 
including detail on the grammar productions affected and a 
collection of test cases.

Info: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-
Tests: http://ilrt.org/people/cmdjb/2001/05/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/


On 1st June 2001, the WG decided that aboutEachPrefix would be 
removed from the RDF Model and Syntax Recommendation on the 
grounds that there is a lack of implementation experience, and 
it therefore should not be in the recommendation. A future 
version of RDF may consider support for this feature.


On 8th June 2001 the WG decided how empty property elements 
should be interpreted. The decision is fully represented by the 
test cases.

Tests: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-


On 8th June 2001 the WG decided that an RDF model may contain 
partial descriptions of a container. Thus an RDF model is not 
contrained to have the containermembership properties contiguous 
starting from rdf:_1.

Please note that all of the above issues are now considered 
closed by the Working Group.

More info on these and future decisions are kept at:

** Currently Active

rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema and rdf-containers-syntax-ambiguity

The working group is currently considering using the test cases at:
as a resolution of the issue. Additionally, a write-up of the 
resolution is currently in progress.

A list of currently active issues is at:

Discussion happens on the w3c-rdfcore-wg list, archives at:

** N-Triples Format

The RDF Core Working Group has created the "N-Triples format" to 
record the results of test cases. Dan Connolly described it as:

	...terms of the form
		_:name		for "anonymous" terms
		<absURIref>	for URIs
		"lskdjf"	for string literals.

	and statements of the form
		S P O.
	where S, P, and O are terms (S and P can't be literals
	in the expected results from any RDF 1.0
]]]  - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0264

Please note that the N-Triples format is subject to change as 
the RDF Core Working Group makes changes to the RDF model, or 
abstract syntax.

The N-Triples format is currently outputted by SiRPAC (including 
the online version) and notation3.py or cwm.py, using the 
-n3=spart option.

He wrote a small Perl parser to turn it into a more verbose 
Prolog-ish output:

Resolved tests should have two files, a testxxx.rdf file with 
RDF/XML input and a testxxx.nt file with N-Triples output. RDF 
Core is keeping a test case archive at:

** Feedback

I hope that this summary has been useful to you. If you would 
like me to continue to summarize future RDF Core decisions, 
please send me feedback on this message:

Comments and feedback about RDF, RDF Core, or RDF Core decisions 
should go to:

(DISCLAIMER: This message speaking only on behalf of myself.)
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Friday, 22 June 2001 12:10:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:36 UTC